UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY EDWIN DORSEY, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00174-MJG-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Edwin Dorsey, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure
Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a nine-day jury trial, Anthony E. Dorsey was
convicted by a jury on five counts of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C.
§ 7201 (2006), and seven counts of willful failure to file tax
returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (2006). He was sentenced to thirty-
seven months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, Dorsey has chosen
to proceed pro se. Dorsey challenges the district court’s jury
instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review de novo the legal question of whether a
district court has properly instructed a jury on the statutory
elements of the offense. United States v. Rahman, 83 F.3d 89,
92 (4th Cir. 1996). In order to establish a violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7201, the Government must prove the defendant acted
willfully and committed an affirmative act that constituted an
attempted evasion of tax payments and, as a result, a
substantial tax deficiency existed. United States v. Wilson,
118 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir. 2007). To sustain a conviction for
willful failure to file a tax return, the Government must show
that the defendant had a legal duty to file, that he failed to
file, and that the failure was willful. 26 U.S.C. § 7203;
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 1986).
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence” faces a “heavy burden.” United States v. Beidler, 110
2
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s
reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence
should be ‘confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.’” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.
1984) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
A verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial
evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in
the record is substantial, this court views the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, and inquires whether
there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept
as adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d
849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996).
We have reviewed the transcripts of the proceedings
below in light of Dorsey’s arguments on appeal and conclude the
district court appropriately instructed the jury regarding the
elements of the charged offenses and that sufficient evidence
supports the jury’s verdict. We further reject Dorsey’s
contention that he is not among the class of individuals
required to file and pay taxes. See United States v. Studley,
783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (“An individual is a ‘person’
under the Internal Revenue Code . . . .”); Lovell v. United
States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984) (“All individuals,
3
natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their
wages . . . .”).
Accordingly, we affirm Dorsey’s convictions and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4